Jump to content

Talk:WWOR-TV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New DOG

[edit]

It is a variation on mntv logo.162.84.172.128 16:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh????? Gingermint (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I would like to see the logo from February moved out of the logo gallery and into the article near a discussion of the creation of My Network TV, without disrupting the article. Can someone more experienced in Wiki-code who knows what parts of the caption to cut do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan Wick (talk • contribs)

I've reverted back for three reasons:

1: the line about Nets conflict games previously airing on WLNY (added by IP user "71.247.161.235") has NOTHING to do with this article; that fact is trivial. It belongs in WLNY, not here.

2: CoolKatt number 99999's attempt to restructure this article is unnecessary.

3: Johnissoevil's addition on the North Bergen tower, while being an important fact, can be rewritten, but I'll leave that up to him to do.

Rollosmokes 05:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YES-produced sports on WWOR

[edit]

Prior to the current Yankee and Nets games airing on WWOR, YES Network produced over the air games on other stations. The Yankee games were on WCBS-TV and the Nets games were on WLNY. Rollosmokes has deleted those references, citing it is unneccesary trivia. I believe that is more than mere trivia and has a place in the article.

Even if it is trivia, isn't one of the purposes of Wikipedia to share our knowledge with others. Even the smallest fact can create so much insight, and give one a better understanding of the subject. It is not like this article is too long.

I'd appreciate comments from Rollosmokes and others on the subject.

--Milchama (Talk) 11:11, 06 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to stand behind my reasons for deleting the WCBS-TV/WLNY stuff. To further expand, I believe that, in this case, those mentions belong in the New York Yankees and New Jersey Nets articles, but not here. IMO, it's trivial.
Now, as for CoolKatt's recent revisions, they are more than unnecessary. There is NO NEED to further section the paragraphs based on the separate ownerships, because it's redundant to do so in the manner which the article is presently written. CK attempted to do the same thing with WCAU [1] and KYW-TV [2] and it didn't work there. He just can't leave things as they are, but I'm not going to get into a diatribe about CK right now, because that's what this page is for.
As for Milchama, were you not near your regular computer or were you trying not to be noticed when you made those changes (hence the IP address?) Rollosmokes 03:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Milchama never claims (s)he was the one who originally made those claims. (S)he may only be defending that person. Note that (s)he did actually put those back in starting on 7/5, but all other additions of that info, dating back to June, are from IP addresses. That's a long time to not be "near your regular computer" (which isn't a reason to not use your username anyway, unless you're at a blocked IP, in which case you shouldn't be able to edit at all. If you don't want someone coming and using your account for vandalism, just remember to log out, or don't use cookies). I probably wasn't as clear on that as I hoped, was I? Morgan Wick 23:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before certain people jump over the cliff...

[edit]

Too much has been done recently to make a mess of what had been a decently-written article. The last revision looked too sloppy, so I had to make the changes to simplify it once again.

  • CoolKatt's insistence on additional sub-sectioning the article based on the different ownerships of channel nine are redundant and unnecessary. On first sight, it makes the whole text look disorganized. I reiterate again that he tried to do the same thing with KYW-TV and WCAU and those efforts were nullified.
  • Blueboy96 again rewrites lines and paragraphs that didn't need to be rewritten. He attempts to add more information, but instead he overwrites and ends up adding stuff that really isn't directly pertinent to the main focus of the article. The lines expanding on the aftermath of the UPN-WB merger and the creation of MNTV, and on how it all affected WWOR and its sister stations, doesn't belong here as it was written. This article is about WWOR-TV, not the ramifications which the Fox-owned UPN group as a whole endured during that time.

I know what CK, David Levy, and maybe others will say about this: I am claiming ownership of this article. As hard as it may be for you to believe (especially CoolKatt, the biggest practictioner of WP:OWN), I am NOT. My only focus here is to write in an effective manner that KEEPS IT SIMPLE. That's all. Rollosmokes 17:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

[edit]

I'm seeing zero cooperation and a disruptive number of reversions. If this continues, I'm going to request that the article be temporarily protected. This will lock it into the wrong version for someone, so I suggest that you stop reverting and start discussing. —David Levy 18:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked CoolKatt number 99999 for 24-hours for violating the three-revert rule. I offered to unblock on the condition that CoolKatt discuss the matter in good faith on this talk page and not revert again for at least 24 hours. CoolKatt then proceeded to post a message here, threatening to nominate the article for deletion. (I don't know how this occurred, as I never unblocked.) This obviously doesn't qualify as good faith, so the block stands. —David Levy 19:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who sees this whole thing as WP:LAME fodder? Morgan Wick 01:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current news personalities

[edit]

Could someone more familiar with the My9 news team put up a list of its current anchors and reporters, similar to what's at the WPIX article? Also FYI, it looks like tonight was the last day at work for Rolland Smith and Cathleen Trigg. --SHODAN 03:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some confusion here...

[edit]

With Channel 9 dropping UPN on August 31 and not becoming MNTV until a few days later, would that make the station an interim independent for those few days? John 23:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made the edits. Right now, technically, WWOR is an interim Independent until September 5. If you feel the current look of the article isn't necessary, feel free to change it (just as long as the changes aren't vandalizm).John 10:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fun fact, I'll place it here

[edit]

I didn't put this in the main article because I felt it's just trivial info. But that's just me. Tonight, I was at work (I work in Sea Bright, NJ), and I saw several NYC news trucks ride by. The WWOR news trucks still have the "Box 9" logo used between the time they dropped UPN from their branding and the time they added the "my" to the old logo. Probably won't be long before they replace it with the current "My 9" logo. John 05:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes...

[edit]

Several folks who use IP addresses instead of screennames, specifically "205.188.116.204" and "69.34.89.183", have been insisting on editing this article without READING WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN. Hence, their results have been redundant and their additions are unnecessary. An explanation:

  • To "205.188.116.204" - there is no need to list additional sitcoms picked up by WWOR-TV in the late '80s after the MCA takeover and overhaul. Listing The Cosby Show is enough because of its prominence as the number-one program at that time. Anything else adds too much needless detail, and this article is long enough as it is.
  • To "69.34.89.183" - this user obviously didn't read the entire text. The Joe Franklin mention is in the Trivia section. I added that line, put it into the main article originally, but later decided it belonged in Trivia because it didn't fit within the article as it was written. On the subject of children's programming, your changes were poor in nature (the word children('s) instead of kid('s) is proper grammar), and the Disney mention is pretty trivial. You made other stylistic and grammatical changes (how is WABD going independent in 1956 "sort of" increasing the independent field when it obviously did?), including re-reverting the UPN-WB merger lines I simplified, and undoing the alphabetical arrangement I made with the news personalities section. The Noon newscast mention should be in the news section. Rollosmokes 17:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes redux

[edit]

I revamped the article on October 28, removing the logo gallery and placing the logos within the text. With all of the fair-use image galleries being purged from television articles, I felt compelled to make these changes, as I believe the images should be kept, gallery or not. As you can see, the logos are all placed in areas of the text based on chronology. Rollosmokes 06:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan of the interspersed logos, and would like to see the gallery reinstated. Anyone else agree with me? Milchama 06:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but this opinion cannot override our fair use policy (which galleries of fair-use images seem to violate). —David Levy 14:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could some of these logos be removed? It seems to me that a logo that lasted less than a year doesn't really warrant mention, as it was more a temporary move than a permanent move. My suggestion would be to show the UPN 9 orange/black/white logo and to mention that several variants were used before the final My 9 logo currently in use. I also liked the gallery format, but I think that reducing the logos would reduce clutter on this page. I welcome further discussion before I or anyone else acts on these suggestions. Thanks. --70.111.66.33 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is currently disputed that fair-use historical image galleries violate policy and the issue is being discussed at Wikipedia:Fair use/Historical logos in galleries. Please contribute to this discussion and help determine what to do about this. DHowell 20:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Callsign question

[edit]

The current article says:

Call letters meaning: WWOR, the original calls, with an extra letter added

And, while that's certainly true, it doesn't explain where WOR came from in the first place. I looked in the article & don't see where the original callsign came from. So really I have 2 questions: 1) Where did WOR come from, and can it be added to the article 2) Shouldn't that info also be in the infobox?

Thanks in advance. --Diogenes00 00:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The call letters WOR stand for "World Of Radio", which I guess was an early WOR radio slogan. There are enough Wiki-links to WOR (AM) so that anyone to learn about the origins of that station -- and of WWOR-TV, by extension -- can go there and find out. Rollosmokes 06:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes part trois

[edit]

In response to David Levy's questions:

1. Why are you removing the interim "9" logo in favor of the logo that appears at the beginning of the article?

There are already lots of historical logos in this article already. Does removing one **interim** logo take away anything that is overly significant to the article as a whole?

2. Why are you replacing a high-quality PNG with an inferior JPEG of the same logo?

Who says JPEGs are inferior? You say they are, so I guess they must be. Anyhow, there are tons of other JPEG images on Wikipedia that are of good quality. Do you plan to purge all of these images also?

Specifically here, Image:WWOR_NewJersey.jpg is the official WWOR-TV logo, as it appears on the News Corporation website. If you cared to notice, it has both a proper licensing tag, and the fair-use rationale template. There is nothing wrong with this logo, as there was nothing wrong with replacing one of the temporary logos -- until YOU decided there was a problem. Rollosmokes 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer to question 1 is a little redundant in answering question 1. Morgan Wick 18:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes, replacing a logo discussed in the accompanying prose with one that already appears elsewhere on the page reduces the article's quality. Additionally, such duplication arguably exceeds the legal limitations of fair use.
2. I didn't say that JPEGs always are inferior to PNGs. All else being equal, however, they generally are when it comes to this type of image. PNG is a lossless compression format, so it's ideal for images with large, simple, and continuous blocks of color (such as this one). JPEG is a lossy compression format, so it's ideal for images with high color depth (namely photographs), which are impractically large in lossless formats (and for which JPEG compression artifacts are far less noticeable). This isn't merely my opinion; it's policy.
No, I don't intend to purge Wikipedia of JPEGs (or even JPEG logos). In this particular instance, we happen to have a PNG of higher quality. It's equally "official," so I don't understand that point.
3. I've seen you argue that "there was nothing wrong with [fill in the blank] until you decided there was a problem" on numerous occasions, and I wish that you would stop doing this. The same argument could be applied to your replacement of the PNG with the JPEG, and that would be equally unhelpful. This is a wiki, so people (including you and me) are going to perform edits to longstanding content. The fact that something was a certain way for some length of time is not a valid rationale for undoing a change that you dislike. (Citing it as such is an attempt to own the article.) When a disagreement arises, the proper course of action is to explain why something is better one way than it is another way. You attempted to do this above, so there was no need for the added hostility. —David Levy 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What hostility? Please, spare me this. As usual, we disagree -- this time on the quality of the image. I feel the JPEG is of a very good quality, and it is the accurate logo. If it came straight from the corporate website, then it's as official as it can get. There are similar logos for WDCA, WUTB, WRBW, KUTP, KTXH, and WFTC (am I forgetting anyone?) from the same website that are similar to the WWOR-TV one, and I've uploaded them all. As far as your apparent belief that JPEG images are inferior to PNG images, all I was saying is that if something is done for one article, then the same should apply for all. If you're going to replace one JPEG with a PNG, then do them all. But, since having both current "My 9" logos can constitute redundancy, I'll remove the PNG image. And, BTW, I DID explain my reasoning for reverting the changes. Rollosmokes 09:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. I didn't say that the JPEG is of poor quality. I said that its quality is lower than that of the PNG. If we didn't have the PNG, the JPEG would be fine. But we do have the PNG.
2. The PNG was derived from an image taken from the WWOR website. It's exactly the same logo (and no less official).
3. Again, I'm not claiming that JPEG images are inherently inferior to PNG images. I'm noting that all else being equal, PNGS are preferable for this specific type of image (which is a matter of policy, not my merely my personal opinion). Lossy compression formats (such as JPEG) are a poor choice because of their compression artifacts. These exist in the original JPEG, and additional compression artifacts (introduced in the lossy re-compression performed by MediaWiki) are present in the scaled 150px version. PNG, conversely, is a lossless compression format. No matter how many times a PNG is compressed, the visual information never changes (assuming that the image isn't otherwise edited or resized). When MediaWiki scales a PNG, it's then re-compressed in a manner that doesn't reduce its quality.
4. I didn't replace the JPEG with a PNG. You replaced the PNG with a JPEG of inferior quality (for no apparent reason).
5. Thank you for restoring the interim "9" logo to the article and removing the redundant current logo.
6. I plainly acknowledged that you provided an explanation. My point, as stated above, was that "there was no need for the added hostility." —David Levy 13:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Wwortv200.png

[edit]

Image:Wwortv200.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material

[edit]

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in the article. Not including this type of material in articles abides by current consensus and is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:

  1. WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information." As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
  2. As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
  3. WP:NLIST tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
  4. Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable. Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Fink

[edit]

Is Zachary Fink still at WWOR or not? I am not sure. This link may be outdated. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FCC license

[edit]

from my talk page:

Please stop re-adding the sentence on the "pending license renewal" in the introductory paragraph. We try to limit intros in TV and radio station articles to the basics: call letters, channel/frequency, location, ownership, etc. At best, the "pending license renewal" stuff is miscellaneous in relation to what is included in the intro, and there is a section in the article which explains that issue in-depth. Other Side One (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addtionally, Other Side One claim in an edit summary that line does not belong in the introduction, as has been explained previously...there is a section for that within the article

Can Other Side One please inform asto when when and where this explanation took place and provide the appropriate links to any discussion preceeding it? Can One Other Side clarify who the "we", who try to set limits are? And also provide a rationale for edits in light of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section? Djflem (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from your obvious intent to prove a point, have you taken the time to read other TV station articles? Nearly all of them follow the standard format which I explained to you in the message I left you on your talk page. (Was there really a need to cut-and-paste it here?) Some still contain way more intricate technical information than others, but it's pretty much the basic layout. Allow me to remind you that we had this same minor dispute a few months ago and you stopped pursuing it, so why reignite it now? The license issue is MINOR; there is a section of the article devoted to that topic. It does not belong in the lead section, plain and simple. Hasn't been a problem for four months, shouldn't be one now. Other Side One (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the issues brought up above instead of reiterating your POV.Djflem (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did. This is not a point-of-view issue, that is where you are getting it twisted. Other Side One (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't. :As mention in 2nd paragraph in MOSLead: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies FCC licensing is not miscellaneous and it's your POV to suggest so. Djflem (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is not going to hold up. Most average people (viewers) don't even know about the license issue, and if they did wouldn't care all that much. Thus, this does not count as a "prominent controversy."
Thirty years ago WOR-TV nearly lost its license because of RKO General's issues. The license was saved by moving the station from NYC to New Jersey. That was a major "prominent controversy" back then, and the FCC was more active in exercising its authority when it came to those things. The fact that the current issue has not been acted upon in six years tells you something, doesn't it? No one is making a big fuss about it outside, so please don't make one here. Other Side One (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on WWOR-TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New logo?

[edit]

There seems to be a dispute over which is the "official" logo. I asked someone to upload the correct logo not realizing that was a problem. If someone had described the facts on the Help Desk, this wouldn't have happened.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WWOR-TV&oldid=1208326831"